Advocates:
['AKHILESH SINGH', '', 'SHIVAM YADAV', 'G A']

1

AFR

Court No. - 84

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1629 of 2021

Revisionist :- Vidya Nand Yadav

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Revisionist :- Akhilesh Singh,Shivam Yadav

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.

1.

Heard Sri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for the

revisionist and Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned Additional Government

Advocate-I appearing along with Ms. Sushma Soni, learned

Additional Government Advocate for the State-opposite party.

2.

Present criminal revision has been preferred seeking to

set-aside the order dated 7.7.2021, passed by the Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Kushinagar at Padrauna, whereby the application filed

by revisionist under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973¹, for release of truck seized under Section 21(4)

of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,

1957², has been rejected.

3.

Pleadings of the case indicate that the vehicle owned by the

revisionist, a truck carrying gitti (a minor mineral), was seized by

the Mines Inspector, Kushinagar on 19.4.2021, and a report was

forwarded to the District Officer for further proceedings under

Rule 74 of the Uttar Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules,

1963³. The revisionist claims to have approached the District

Officer and thereafter he filed an application under Section 457 of

the Code before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushinagar at

Padrauna, on 3.6.2021, seeking release of the vehicle. The Chief

Judicial Magistrate, after calling for a report from the Mines

1

The Code

2

MMDR Act

3

The Concession Rules

2

Inspector, passed an order on 7.7.2021, rejecting the application

filed under Section 457 of the Code.

4.

Learned counsel for revisionist has sought to assail the

aforesaid order dated 7.7.2021, passed by the Chief Judicial

Magistrate, by seeking to contend that since the vehicle of the

revisionist had been seized, learned Magistrate has committed an

error in rejecting the application seeking release of the vehicle,

despite the necessary powers in regard to the same being available

under Section 457 of the Code. It is submitted that order passed by

the Magistrate is based on non-application of mind and is illegal

and unsustainable. Learned counsel further submits that the

vehicle, which is lying with the authorities, is liable to be released.

In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance

upon the decisions in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs.

State of Gujarat⁴, Rajendra Singh vs. State of U.P. and

Others⁵, Smt. Sudha Kesarwani vs. State of U.P. and Another⁶,

and Smt. Manu Devi vs. State of U.P. and Others⁷.

5.

Learned Additional Government Advocate-I has

controverted the aforesaid contention by submitting that the

vehicle/truck in question, of which the revisionist claims

ownership, was intercepted while illegally transporting gitti (a

minor mineral) and was seized by the Mines Inspector on

19.4.2021, in exercise of powers under Section 21(4) of the

MMDR Act and a report was forwarded to the District Officer for

initiation of proceedings under Rule 74 of the Concession Rules.

In the meantime, the revisionist submitted an application dated

23.4.2021 to the District Magistrate, seeking compounding of the

offence, and an order dated 28.05.2021 was passed directing the

revisionist to deposit the requisite amount towards compounding

4

2005 (46) ACC 223

5

AIR 2015 Allahabad 93

6

2011 (1) ADJ 498

7

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 20111 of 2020; dt. 18.8.2015

3

fee as per the relevant Government Order, whereupon the

compounding was to be made and the release of the vehicle would

have followed. It has been pointed out that the revisionist did not

deposit the requisite compounding fee and moved an application

under Section 457 of the Code, before the Chief Judicial

Magistrate, which has been rightly rejected as being not